The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-10-21

recoverable cut of the corpus OF the estate
over the mortgages.
Certainly the order appointing the re
eaiver6ie1 not - read, and there was Moth
ing on the record TO appEise the u10rtga-
GEES that their liens were Liable to be de-
fea5ef 6y the contingency OF the pIanta-
ton under Tie receiver running behind
hand
Why, their were the expenditures to be
made BY the receiver subjected To the. scru-
tInv and allowance ov the COURT He
was not allowed Co make any unusual cut
lay over 500 II amount without the ex-
press sanction CT the Court L5 was IN nv
opinion in order 70 protect the interest on
the dewsees Of L. Cnna deceased aud sas
prevent unnecessary and expensive out
lays which would postpone their gatrlng
anything until these were paid I am fully
impressed with the weight or the reasons
which are urged against the view I have
taken To wit that the petitioners, N b
CFrnBaum & Co., were Justified IN giving
fail faith and ereait % the receiver and I'd
the order Of the Courr appointing him;
that the authority to borrow money for ad-
vauees implies the understanding TO see 3t
paid etc
think ID can Dc drawn from ali the
cases cited that those who take receivers
certificates or, IS IN This case. advance
money to the receiver. SO. so~subfeet to- the
rights ct the parties WHO have prior liens
upon the property and who have not but
should have been brought into Court #
their rights were 70 BE- affected There
may De exceptional cases when Court
viii deem IT necessary TO charge the prop
erty over the prior liens with receivers
lien IN advance OF the parties who h0ld
these prior liens being brought into Courg.
and the Court VIII then have 10 consider
whether It IS equitable 70 make such q su-
perior charge upon the property.
But do not ind the case before me IS OF
such nature
Declining 30 hold 5hat the advances to !
the receiver from August 5. 1885 to April ]
13, 1887. are first charge upon the prop
erry. no reference OF this account Is neces-
saFy. As above stated, the account from
April =. 1887 to day Of sale Of the pIanta
ton may De referred 20 a Master TO Dc +
agreed UPON by the parties, or # they can
not agree upon one viii appoint one. and +
/ viii raake=sueh directions to him as they (
may De applied for from time 10 time.
The authorities cited by petitioners are +
Wabash W. L. and P r b. vs. Central /
Trust Co, % Fed. Rep. 271- High on. Re
ceIver, sec. 394. 3. and c., 4T2 Blair Is
st. Louis p. b - Fed. Rep, ~ Central /.
Trust Co vs.. Wabash b. 2. p Fed Bep.,
868- Kerr on Receivers, Building Associa- I
ton vs. Supreme Court. 50 Cat. 223s Glib
son VI. Martin 8 Paige 48I If55euberger
vs. r. p. I96 II. s. 285r Henry vs. H. I
Midland R b. q Fed. Rep, U.s. FosCiek 1
vs. SehalI, % T. =. 23J
For the mortgages High on Receivers. +
sections L, 81. 290. II. I12, 6s2, $50 6s5, !
$50. 1875 3 H.. g, Il Com q Fed. p /
176; kerr's injunction. so, 81, y "a, IS, SO, /
. and 3.
In the case OF Henderson u. Allen, I I
order the distribution Of the funds as fol-
lows; First TO the payment Of the re- I
cefVer's account from april q, 1887 10 dav
Of sale, and then the mortgages with inter
est according to their priority. As the
fund IS sufficient to pay all. see no reason
Why the mortgages nav not De paid IN
full without waiting for the Masters re- 4
port
The receiver IS directed to realize upon
the individual estate of the. partners and to
wind up the partnership II accordance
with the law
Decree accordingly 4 F. JUDD
Chief Justice and Chancellor
F. NJ Hatch ana 5. 2. Dole for petf-
toners, VI 5 Grin5aam q Co, ". Of
Smith ard W Kinney for first and third
mortgages; Cecil Brown for executors OF
viii OF August Unna, deceased. w Foster,
guardian al Item for Elise Unna
Honolulu, October Is, 1887
On October 18th NJ s. Griabaam & Co.
7y their counsel, s 3 Dole, noted an ap-
peal TO the Supreme Court Ii banco from
the decision rendered by the Chief Justice.